State Of M. P. vs Sardar D. K. Jadav

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1968 Supreme(SC) 17

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
The State of M.P. and others, Appellants
Versus
I. Sardar D. K. Jadav (In C. A. No. 1244 of 1967), 2. Narayan Dutta Mishra (In C. A. No. 1245 of 1967), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1244 and 1245 of 1967,
D/-25-1-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen. Senior Advocate (Mr. 1. N. Shroff, Advocate with him), for Appellants (In both the Appeals); M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates of M/s. K. L. Mehta and Co. and Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate, for Respondents (In both the Appeals)
Civil Appeal No. 1245 of 1967 :

Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, B.SEN, K.L.Mehta, S.K.MEHTA

Headnote:(1) Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951 (M.B.) - Ss. 17, 4 and 5 - scope of the inquiry under section 17 - disputes that may be decided under section 17 - object of the inquiry - whether any property falls within sections 4 (1) (a) and 5 - dispute not covered by section 17.
       It is manifest that under section 17 of the Abolition Act only those disputes which pertain to the Jagirdari title or right in Jagir lands already resumed under section 3 of the Abolition Act can be raised. The section also contemplates that the disputes must be raised during the course of an inquiry for assessment of compensation by the Jagir Commissioner. It should be noticed that section 17 is included in Chapter III which deals with compensation which the Government is liable to pay to every Jagirdar whose Jagirdari land has been resumed under section 3. It follows therefore, that the inquiry made by the Jagir Commissioner under section 17 on the question of title is only for the purpose of enabling him to pay compensation to the person who in his opinion is entitled to receive it.
       The scope of the inquiry under section 17 only relates to disputes with regard to rival claimants to Jagirdari title or right in Jagirdari lands already resumed under section 3 of the Abolition Act. In other words the inquiry by the Jagir Commissioner or the decision of the State Government under section 17 does not embrace within its scope any dispute as to whether any particular property falls within section 4 (1) (a) read with section 5 of the Abolition Act and whether it has or has not in consequence vested in the State Government by the notification issued under section 3 of the Abolition Act.
       The inquiry contemplated under section 17 by the Jagir Commissioner relates to compensation to be paid to the Jagirdar whose Jagir is vested in the State Government and once the compensation is determined and paid no further inquiry under section 17 is contemplated, 1967 JLJ SN 7 reversed. [Para 5
       (2) Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951 (M.B.) - Ss. 4 & 5 - section 5 over - rides section 4 - tanks and wells coming within section 5 (c) do not vest under section 4 - for vesting of tanks and wells this is a jurisdictional fact-ex-Jagirdar may establish the fact that the tanks and wells did fall within section 5 (c) and get back possession from the State Government.
       If the ex-Jagirdar is right in his contention that the tanks and wells were constructed on 'occupied land' belonging to the Jagirdar within the meaning of section 5 (c) of the Act, it is manifest that the State Government have no authority to take possession of those tanks and wells because the title therein does not vest in the State Government in view of section 5 (c) which has an overriding effect on section 4 of the Act.
       If the ex-Jagirdar establishes the jurisdictional fact that the tank or well is covered by section 5 (c), he is entitled to get back possession of the tank or well from the State Government. [Para 6
       (3) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - jurisdictional act - finding by subordinate tribunal on such fact - High Court is entitled to determine it again.
       It is well - settled that where the jurisdiction of an administrative authority depends upon a preliminary finding of fact the High Court is entitled in a proceeding for a writ to determine upon its own independent judgment whether or not that finding is correct. (1910) 2 K.B. 879 and (1939) 2 K.B. 838 relied on.
       It is open to the High Court to take evidence, oral and documentary, as the parties may decide to give on this point. [Para 7

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. :- This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated November 30,1966 in Misc. Petn. No. 183 of 1965 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent and quashed two orders dated November 4, 1963 and June 11, 1964 of the Collector of Gwalior (Annexures VIII and XII respectively) and two orders of the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division dated February 19,1964 and November 16,1964 (Annexures X and XIV respectively) in so far as they purported to decide any question raised by the respondent under Section 5 (c) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, Samvat 2008 (Act No. 28 of 1951), hereinafter referred to as "the abolition Act".

2. In Samvat 1885, the Ruler of the erstwhile Gwalior State conferred on Shri Bhavdeo Mishra the predecessor-in-title of the respondent - the jagir of Mauza Siroli, situated in Pargana Gwalior. After the issue of the notification under Section 3 of the Abolition Act, all the property in the jagir including jagir lands, forests, trees, fisheries, wells, tanks, ponds etc. stood vested in the State under Section 4 of the Abolition Act. Under Section 5 (c) of the Abolition Act, all tanks, trees, private wells and buildings in or on occupied land belonging to or held by the Jagirdar or any other person were excluded from vesting. Section 2 (1) (ix) of the Abolition Act defines "occupied land" as follows :- 1188

"(ix) Occupied land means land held immediately before the commencement of this Act on any of the following tenures, namely :

(a) Ex-proprietary;

(b) Pukhta Maurusi;

(d) Gair Maurusi;

and includes land held as Khud Kasht and land comprised in a homestead;"

Sections 3, 4 (I) (a) and 5 (c) of the Abolition Act are reproduced below:

"3. Resumption of Jagir-lands by the Government.- (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the Government shall by notification in the Gazette appoint a date for the resumption of all Jagir-lands in the State.

2. The Government may, by notification published in the Gazette, vary the date specified under sub-section (1} at any time before such date.

(3) The date finally appointed under this section as the date for the resumption of Jagirlands is hereinafter referred to as the date of resumption ."

"4. Consequences of the resumption of Jagir-lands.- (1) As from the date of resumption notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or document, or in any other law, rule, regulation or order for the time being in force but save as otherwise provided in this Act

(a) the right, title and interest of every Jagirdar and of every other person claiming through him (including a Zamindar) in his Jagir-lands, including forests, trees, fisheries, wells, tanks, ponds, water-channels, ferries, pathways, village-sites, hats, bazars and melagrounds and mines and minerals whether being worked or not, shall stand resumed to the State free from all encumbrances;

"5. Private wells, trees, buildings, house-sites and enclosures.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding section,

* * * * * *

(c) all tanks, trees, private wells and buildings in or on occupied land belonging to or held by the Jagirdar or any other person shall continue to belong to or, be held by such Jagirdar on other person."

3. After the abolition of jagirs under the Abolition Act, proceedings were initiated for determining the compensation payable to the respondent and the same was determined at a sum of Rs. 22.293 and odd out of which certain loans were deducted and the amount of Rs. 3,586 and odd was paid. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) Act No. 20 of 1959) came into force on October 2, 1959 and S. 251 thereof reads as follows :-

"Vesting of tanks in State Government.

(1) All tanks situated on unoccupied land on or before the date of coming into force of the Act, providing for the abolition of the rights of intermediaries in the areas concerned and over which membe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document